Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The smartest insight and analysis, from all perspectives, rounded up from around the web:

Facebook and Twitter "spent years preparing to face" the kind of controversy that came with the New York Post's publication of emails allegedly taken from the computer of Joe Biden's son Hunter, said Robert McMillan at The Wall Street Journal. They still ended up with a mess. Twitter, which initially blocked users from sharing the article (and even froze the Post's official account), did "an about-face" after an outcry from Republicans and said it would change its ban on hacked content "unless it's directly shared by hackers." Meanwhile inside Facebook, "executives had performed role-playing exercises about how to respond to an email dump." Following the playbook they developed, Facebook flagged the Post's articles for fact-checking and limited their exposure in news feeds. That didn't shield Facebook from widespread criticism: Republicans lawmakers complained of censorship, even as the Post's articles stayed at the top of the most-shared charts.

"What were they thinking?" asked Matthew Walther at The Week. The platforms' explanations of their actions "are not credible." If Facebook was really concerned about users sharing "unconfirmed" reporting, it wouldn't have waited until last week to block Holocaust denial. It looks instead like "the deliberate use of long-tolerated monopoly power to influence the course of an election." The fallout could well mean that those monopolies as we know them now "will not survive another presidential election." Imagine if these Silicon Valley giants united to ban all content critical of President Trump and promote criticism of Biden, said Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept. Twitter's rationale about blocking documents taken without authorization is unjustifiable and dangerous. What about The New York Times' reports on Trump's leaked tax returns? Anyone cheering for Twitter or Facebook now is "being short-sighted and myopic."

If you're complaining that there is no simple rule telling social media companies what to publish, you've fallen for a false narrative about "censorship," said Max Boot at The Washington Post. "Social-media companies have no obligation to pass along possible Russian disinformation," and it "would be the height of irresponsibility" to broadcast these stories without some fact-checking first. After they got burned in 2016, "it's entirely understandable and proper that Facebook and Twitter exercise some caution." That's not censorship. "It's editorial judgment," and we need more of it.

These platforms have never been neutral, said Kevin Roose at The New York Times. They've been controlling what we see for years. It's just that "their decisions were often buried in obscure 'community standards' updates or hidden tweaks to the black-box algorithms that govern which posts users see." They've just made their "high-stakes decisions" more visible. But Facebook and Twitter still haven't provided nearly enough visibility into their decision, said Andy Kessler at The Wall Street Journal. On the contrary, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's explanations and reversal have given "his adversaries the fuel to burn his tweet house down." If the social media giants with their multibillion-dollar valuations want to survive this, they'll need to go much further on transparency. I want to see Facebook's community standards "chiseled in stone" and detailed explanations for each banned post.

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. If you want to read more like it, you can try six risk-free issues of the magazine here.

Originally posted here:
Is social media censoring speech or combating disinformation? - The Week Magazine

Newswise The Stonewall Riots often are cited as the beginning of the LGBTQ movement. However, recent research fromJason Shepard, chair and professor of communications at Cal State Fullerton, highlights how First Amendment law was both a weapon and shield in the expansion of LGBTQ rights.

Shepard can provide an in-depth perspective and researched-based context to LGBTQ rights discussions. His research examines the legal history of three 1950s and early 1960s cases in which the Supreme Court overturned the censorship of magazines by and for sexual minorities, and how that allowed LGBTQ Americans develop identity and community, laid the foundation for the future of LGBTQ rights law. Shepard summarizes his research in thisone-minute video.

ONEmagazine, published from 1953 to 1967, was the first widely distributed LGBT magazine in the U.S. It was banned from the mail in 1954.

"The cases I examined are another reminder of how powerful the U.S. Supreme Court is and has been in the history of our democracy. In 1958, the Supreme Court decided that America's first gay-rights magazine couldn't be banned from the U.S. mail. The decision allowed ONE magazine to connect gays and lesbians to a broader subculture that later launched the gay liberation movement."

Read Shepard's research in "The First Amendment and the Roots of LGBTQ Rights Law:Censorship in the Early Homophile Era, 1958-1962" published in theWilliam & Mary Journal of Race, Gender and Social Justice.

Jason Shepard, chair and professor of communications

Shepard teaches courses in the communications law and journalism. He has authored several books, including: "Privileging the Press: Confidential Sources, Journalism Ethics and the First Amendment," "Major Principles of Media Law," and "Ethical Issues in Communication Professions: New Agendas in Communications." He writes "Online Legalities," a regular column inCalifornia Publisher.Shepard also has published research inYale Journal of Law and Technology,Communication Law and Policy,Journal of Media Law & Ethics,Nexus Journal of Law and Policy,andDrake Law Review. Shepards research has been cited widely, including by a federal appellate court and in theNew York Times.

Excerpt from:
Research reveals how magazine censorship in the 50s and 60s laid the foundation for future LGBTQ rights law - Newswise

Government officials in Thailand are threateningto censor coverage of anti-government protests, according to The Associated Press, targeting news outlets, a publishing house and a Telegram messaging app beingused by demonstrators.

The AP noted that atop official with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission confirmedthat it had been ordered to block access to the encrypted messaging app Telegram.

A police spokesman also reportedly confirmed an order allowingauthorities to censor news sites that are sharing information deemed distorted. A copy of the censorship request obtained by the AP showed that five online news sites and one digital broadcast were being targeted after showing live footage of the protests.

Same Sky, known for producing work in the past with controversial publications, was also searched by police, according to the news service, which added that copies of three books were taken and the publisher was told to come in for questioning.

Additionally, authorities have reportedly threatened to take action against those who promote the protests on social media.

Bangkok was put under a state of emergency last week at the start ofstudent-led protests against Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha and the monarchy, which have ramped up in recent days. Demonstrators say flaws in the country's constitution affected the outcome of last years general election.

While Thai officials are now reportedly threatening to silence demonstrators in an attempt to curb the protests,it doesnt appear that any of the censorship measures have been enacted.

Read more from the original source:
Thai authorities threaten to censor coverage of anti-government protests | TheHill - The Hill

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) Amid a year of contagion and turmoil, Chileans vote Sunday on whether to draft a new constitution for their nation to replace guiding principles imposed four decades ago under a military dictatorship.

The countrys conservative government agreed with the center-left opposition to allow the plebiscite a month after the outbreak of vast street protests that erupted a year ago in frustration over inequality in pensions, education and health care in what has long been one of South Americas most developed nations.

If approved, a special convention would begin drafting a new constitution that would be submitted to voters in mid-2022.

Chiles current constitution was drafted by the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and was sent to voters at a time where political parties had been banned and the country was subject to heavy censorship.

It was approved by a 66%-30% margin in a 1980 plebiscite, but critics say many voters were cowed into acceptance by a regime that had arrested, tortured and killed thousands of suspected leftist opponents following the overthrow of an elected socialist government.

I think that many people went to vote out of fear, said political scientist Claudio Fuentes, who wrote a book about that plebiscite titled, The Fraud.

The current constitution has a flaw of origin, which is that it was created during the military dictatorship in an undemocratic process, said Monica Salinero, a 40-year-old sociologist who supports drafting a new charter.

The free-market principles embodied in that document led to a booming economy that continued after the return to democracy in 1990, but not all Chileans shared.

A minority was able to take advantage of good, privatized education, health and social security services, while others were forced to rely on sometimes meager public alternatives. Public pensions for the poorest are just over $200 a month, roughly half the minimum wage.

Recent polls have indicated heavy backing for a new constitution despite opposition from conservative groups, and expectations among many are high.

Luisa Fuentes Rivera, a 59-year-old food vendor, said hopes that with a new constitution we will have better work, health, pensions and a better quality of life for older people, and a better education.

But historian Felipe Navarrete warned, Its important to say that the constitution wont resolve the concrete problems. It will determine which state we want to solve the problems.

Claudia Heiss, head of the political science department at the University of Chile, said it would send a signal about peoples desires for change, and for a sort of politics that would allow greater inclusion of sectors that have been marginalized from politics.

Conservative groups fear the revamp could go too far, and endanger parts of the constitution that have helped the country prosper.

The people have demonstrated saying they want better pensions, better health, better education. and the response of the political class is a process that wont solve the problems and will open a period of uncertainty, said Felipe Lyon, 28-year-old lawyer and spokesman for the group No, Thanks that opposes the change.

The decision to allow the vote came after hundreds of thousands of Chileans repeatedly took to the streets in protests that often turned violent.

The vote was initially scheduled for April, but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has killed some 13,800 Chileans, with more than 500,000 people infected by the new coronavirus.

Officials trying to ensure voters feel safe are barring infected persons or those close to them from the polls. Voters must wear masks dipping them only briefly for identification purposes and must bring their own pencils.

The manner of drafting a new constitution is also on Sundays ballot. Voters will choose between a body of 155 citizens who would be elected just for that purpose in April, or a somewhat larger convention split equally between elected delegates and members of Congress.

Read more here:
Chileans vote on whether to rewrite dictatorship-era charter - Associated Press

The Menlo Park Library hosts Ladera resident John Billheimer virtually in a talk about his Edgar Award-winning dive into the fascinating career of filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock, who spent a career battling and finessing the Motion Picture Production Code. The talk takes place on Tuesday, October 27 from 6:00 to 7:00 pm. Register online.

Throughout his career, Alfred Hitchcock had to deal with a wide variety of censors attuned to the slightest suggestion of sexual innuendo, undue violence, toilet humor, religious disrespect, and all forms of indecency, real or imagined.

During their review of Hitchcocks films, the censors demanded an average of 22.5 changes, ranging from the mundane to the mind-boggling, on each of his American films. Code reviewers dictated the ending of Rebecca (1940), absolved Cary Grant of guilt in Suspicion (1941), edited Cole Porters lyrics in Stage Fright (1950), decided which shades should be drawn in Rear Window (1954), and shortened the shower scene in Psycho (1960).

In Hitchcock and the Censors, the author traces the forces that led to the Production Code and describes Hitchcocks magician-like touch when negotiating with code officials and sidestepping censorship to produce a lifetime of memorable films.

John Billheimer is the author of two mystery series; one with West Virginia failure analyst Owen Allison, and the other featuring Ohio sportswriter Lloyd Keaton. He has taught courses in film noir, hard-boiled fiction on film, and the modern mystery in film and print at Stanford and Santa Clara Universities.

Read the original post:
Author John Billheimer talks about Hitchcock and the censors on October 27 - InMenlo